But you need to realize that it turns out that the hypocrisy of Hollywood liberals is all-pervasive and all-encompassing. Like the doctrine of human sin under Calvinist theology, hypocrisy extends into and corrupts every single aspect of the liberals’ being.

I came across this one-sided presentation of the wonders of ObamaCare in the Los Angeles Times and immediately saw that the “journalist” who “reported” on this story pathologically refused to consider the ramifications of what she was writing.

But consider: given that liberals LOVE to attack whole industries for not paying their workers enough, blah-blah-blah, look who ALSO hasn’t been paying their damn workers anywhere NEAR enough (before we deal with just what “big” beneficiaries of ObamaCare actually are getting).

We’re told in the article below:

More than most people, workers in the area’s vast entertainment industry are poised to benefit from the federal health law…

And do you know why that is? Think of it from the perspective that the liberals love to demonize everybody else over. Here, I’ll help:

“When people think Hollywood, they think George Clooney and Meryl Streep, but that’s not the average person in this town,” said Dan Kitowski, director of health services for the western region of the Actors Fund, a national nonprofit that does Affordable Care Act outreach.

Yeah, that’s right. Liberals are always out there demonizing CEOs and saying conservatives are EVIL because they think the people at the top should make more money than the people on the bottom. But that is only because, being liberals, these people are pure, rabid hypocrites who WILL NOT consider the log in their own facelift-surgery-widened eyes.

In 2011, actress Lynda Berg didn’t make enough money to qualify for health insurance through her union. And, on her own, she had trouble finding a plan she could afford because she’s a survivor of breast cancer, considered a preexisting condition..

The uncertainty of not having a health plan was stressful and at times expensive, she recalls. A few years ago she fell and broke her hand and elbow and ended up paying $4,000 for her medical care.

But all that has changed for Berg, 59. In March, she went online, signed up for a policy through Covered California, the state’s new health insurance marketplace set up under the Affordable Care Act, and now is getting medical care.

More than most people, workers in the area’s vast entertainment industry are poised to benefit from the federal health law. But as the new law takes hold, the massive overhaul has also stirred up considerable confusion and anxiety over how to navigate a host of new healthcare options.

For decades, artists have flocked to the state, and many have just scraped by while trying to get their big break. According to a study from the National Endowment for the Arts, California has the highest number of artists in the nation.

The same study found that more than 30% of artists are self-employed compared with 10% in the general population, and rates of uninsured are typically higher among the self-employed than others.

In the industry, actors and other movie workers typically get insurance through their unions. But many say they don’t get enough hours or steady work as actors to meet the income requirements to apply.

For instance, according to data from SAG-AFTRA, the country’s largest union for actors, broadcasters and recording artists, only about 15% of members qualify for health insurance through the union.

“When people think Hollywood, they think George Clooney and Meryl Streep, but that’s not the average person in this town,” said Dan Kitowski, director of health services for the western region of the Actors Fund, a national nonprofit that does Affordable Care Act outreach.

The federal law that went into full effect this year made it easier for people to buy health insurance on their own because coverage is guaranteed regardless of preexisting health conditions, and subsidies are available to make premiums more affordable.

That creates a new range of options for people who are self-employed or who may have held on to a job they didn’t like just for the benefits, said Laura Baker, a senior health and benefits consultant for consulting firm Mercer in Los Angeles. One Harvard study estimated that 11 million Americans were stuck in so-called “job lock” — not able to leave their jobs for fear of losing their health benefits.

“It’s certainly a whole new world for some,” Baker said.

Actress Berg, who lives in Beverlywood, now pays a premium of $145 a month for her Blue Shield of California plan. She’s using her coverage to get prescriptions for $5 a month that she was paying more than $100 to fill before. She plans to head to the doctor’s office soon for a checkup she’s been putting off.

“It’s a tremendous blessing to actors and anyone who doesn’t have insurance,” she said. “Even if you get a plan with a large deductible, at least you have that safety net … and you’re not in debt for the next seven years.”

At a recent workshop at the Actors Fund’s Los Angeles office, actors and artists tried to sort through their new choices.

In a room with a mural of the Hollywood sign on one wall, they asked questions specific to their unpredictable lifestyles: Can they find doctors when they’re on tour? Are specialists, such as throat doctors for singers, covered? Can they dip in and out of union health coverage, or change plans as their income shifts from job to job?

Jorge Bermudez, a percussionist who lives in Baldwin Park, asked what would happen if he couldn’t pay his premium one month. He jumps from gig to gig, and he’s afraid he’ll lose his coverage if he falls behind for a few weeks. He hasn’t had health insurance since he and his wife got divorced several years ago, and he hasn’t been able to get a much-needed hearing aid.

In the past, fluctuating incomes have meant that many artists such as Bermudez, not able to afford their own health plans, have simply gone without when their union insurance or other options lapsed. But now, many can afford individual plans, and are starting to put them to use.

Thousands of Angelenos like Berg signed up for a health plan during Obamacare open enrollment this year. Los Angeles County led the state in sign-ups, with more than 400,000 enrolling through the state exchange. The county made up almost 30% of the statewide total of 1.4 million.

Obamacare open enrollment ended in March, but people who lose their jobs — or get married, have a baby, move or have any other serious change of circumstance — can sign up for a plan year-round. Open enrollment begins again in November.

Krista Madsen, senior vice president of MusiCares, the charitable arm of the Grammys that provides health services to musicians, said that historically, more than 75% of their clients report being uninsured. Not having health insurance has long been part of the life of an artist, even though health problems can have a particularly debilitating effect on artists’ careers.

“If you think about your body as your tool of trade,” Madsen said, “it’s a bigger deal if you have a problem with your vocal cords or with your hearing.”

Average households are getting utterly screwed so that these Hollywood liberal turds can finally have what their hypocrite and union elites have hypocritically refused to give their workers while they self-righteously demonized everybody else for not being quite as evil as THEY have been. You see that in this article: actors and musicians are among the MOST LIKELY OF ALL WORKERS NOT TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. But hey, I’m a liberal, so let’s go over and scream at Wal-Mart for being better than WE are instead.

I read through this and did not see one single criticism of ObamaCare. Even though there are ALL KINDS of criticism about this damn law even in uberleftist California.

It is a vastly different thing to have “health insurance” and to have “health care” when your “health insurance” is in such a limited network that you can’t see a doctor and you definitely can’t see a specialist.

Just the other day in the very same paper as this “news article” appeared praising ObamaCare for saving liberal actors and musicians, I saw this one about what you “win” when you “win” your ObamaCare:

After overcoming website glitches and long waits to get Obamacare, some patients are now running into frustrating new roadblocks at the doctor’s office.

A month into the most sweeping changes to healthcare in half a century, people are having trouble finding doctors at all, getting faulty information on which ones are covered and receiving little help from insurers swamped by new business.

Experts have warned for months that the logjam was inevitable. But the extent of the problems is taking by surprise many patients — and even doctors — as frustrations mount.

Aliso Viejo resident Danielle Nelson said Anthem Blue Cross promised half a dozen times that her oncologists would be covered under her new policy. She was diagnosed last year with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and discovered a suspicious lump near her jaw in early January.

But when she went to her oncologist’s office, she promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.

“I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night,” Nelson said. “I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.”

To hold down premiums under the healthcare law, major insurers have sharply cut the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state’s new health insurance market.

Now those limited options are becoming clearer, and California officials say they are receiving more consumer complaints about access to medical providers. State lawmakers are also moving swiftly to ease some of the problems that have arisen.

“It’s a little early for anyone to know how widespread and deep this problem is,” said California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. “There are a lot of economic incentives for health insurers to narrow their networks, but if they go too far, people won’t have access to care. Network adequacy will be a big issue in 2014.”

The latest travails come at a crucial time during the rollout of Obama’s signature law. Government exchanges and other supporters of the healthcare law are trying to boost enrollment, particularly among young and healthy people, ahead of a March 31 deadline.

Of course, complaints about outdated provider lists and delays in getting a doctor’s appointment were common long before the healthcare law was enacted. But some experts worry the influx of newly insured patients and the cost-cutting strategies of health plans may further strain the system.

Maria Berumen, a tax preparer in Downey, was uninsured for years because of preexisting conditions. The 53-year-old was thrilled to find coverage for herself and her husband for $148 a month after qualifying for a big government subsidy.

She jumped at the chance in early January to visit a primary-care doctor for long-running numbness in her arm and shoulder as a result of bone spurs on her spine. The doctor referred her to a specialist, and problems ensued. At least four doctors wouldn’t accept her health plan — even though the state exchange website and her insurer, Health Net Inc., list them as part of her HMO network.

“It’s a phantom network,” Berumen said.

It was no surprise to her family doctor, Ragaa Iskarous. She has run into this problem repeatedly with other patients in the last month, the doctor said. “This is really driving us crazy.”

Berumen said she was seen by a neurosurgeon Thursday — after state regulators intervened on her behalf.

Insurers say they are working hard to resolve customers’ problems as they arise, and they continue to add physicians to augment certain geographic areas and medical specialties.

“Any huge implementation like this comes with a lot of moving parts,” said Health Net spokesman Brad Kieffer. “There is a learning curve for everyone, and we expect as time goes on these issues should dissipate.”

Looking to head off potential problems, government regulators and patient advocates are pushing for tougher rules to ensure health plans provide timely access to care.

Last week, the California Assembly approved legislation enabling people who lost coverage because of the overhaul to keep seeing their doctors if they’re pregnant or undergoing treatment for cancer or other conditions.

Nelson, the cancer patient in Orange County, and her family lost their previous coverage when Aetna stopped selling individual policies in the state last year. After numerous complaints to her new insurer, Anthem, and to public officials, the company said it would cover visits to her current oncologist through March 31.

Nelson said such a temporary extension doesn’t solve the problem, and as a result, she’s rushing to check out other policies for herself before open enrollment closes in March.

A spokesman for Anthem said the company “continually works to update its provider directories to ensure accuracy” and helps customers with these issues on a case-by-case basis.

You’ve got “insurance,” thanks to Obama.

What you DON’T have and now will NEVER have is “health care.”

Because even in a state like California that liberals are praising because everything there is working “better” than most of the other states that are a complete unmitigated disaster, the system is broken and will now necessarily fall completely apart.

And because liberals got what they wanted (genuine evil, as usual), you can count on the FACT that you are going to now have to pay more and more and more to get less and less and less:

Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.

The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.

The industry complaints come less than a week after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to downplay concerns about rising premiums in the healthcare sector. She told lawmakers rates would increase in 2015 but grow more slowly than in the past.

“The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,” the secretary said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Her comment baffled insurance officials, who said it runs counter to the industry’s consensus about next year.

“It’s pretty shortsighted because I think everybody knows that the way the exchange has rolled out … is going to lead to higher costs,” said one senior insurance executive who requested anonymity.

The insurance official, who hails from a populous swing state, said his company expects to triple its rates next year on the ObamaCare exchange. {…}

You can find out more about the sky-high rate increases here. I wouldn’t want to count on the Los Angeles Times. To the extent they ever bother to actually report the truth at all, it is usually immediately swallowed up by a dozen propaganda articles that try to pump Kool Aid into your brain rather than facts.

Liberals are liars, pure and simple. They are evil people with an evil and frankly demonic agenda. That is what you get when you turn over “health care” to the demonic political party that has murdered more than fifty-five million innocent human beings since 1973 in their abortion mills before making the worship of homosexual sodomy mandatory.

But hey, the little people of Hollywood – you know, the tiny, little cockroaches of liberalism – have their “health insurance” now after having had it denied to them for decades by the same liberal progressive Hollywood tycoons who for years and years have arrogantly and self-righteously demonized the rest of us. So praise false Messiah Obama for that, at least.

When I go to the grocery store, there is frequently someone outside asking me for spare change. When I go to a fast food restaurant, there is more than occasionally someone outside asking me for spare change (although, it’s happened quite a few times that I’ve had people INSIDE these places asking me for spare change, too). When I get gas, there is often someone outside asking me for spare change.

Here is my response to them:

“Let me ask you a question: why should I give you anything?”

That’s a head scratcher for most of the people I deal with, I mean, beyond the pure “entitlement” mindset of, “Because you OWE me for being so wonderful.”

“Because I’m a human being,” I often hear.

“What does that mean to me?” I demand. “According to the theory of evolution, human beings are nothing more than a random-chance accident and you are nothing more than a slightly smarter version of a monkey. According to Darwinism, the stronger ought to survive and the weaker ought to have the decency to perish and get the hell out of the stronger’s way. When the lion or the wolf kills the weakest members of a herd, environmentalists point out that they’re actually doing the herd a service by winnowing out the genetically inferior members who would otherwise undermine the herd. Frankly, according to Darwinsim, I ought to be taking what little you DO have instead of weakening my own prospects to help an inferior.

So again, why should I give you anything?”

Well, as it so happens, there is only ONE correct answer. And here it is:

“Because I’m a human being created in the image of God, and because God loves human beings as demonstrated in His sending His Son to seek and to save me even when I’m lost. And because Jesus cares for the poor, you should care for the poor and help me.”

And with that lesson – along with my pointing out that I am NOT giving a damn thing to you because I’m a good person, but ONLY because I’m following the example of my Savior and Lord, Jesus – I buy them food (I don’t give money to self-destructive people who will only use it to further destroy themselves with drugs and alcohol and cigarettes).

So here’s the question: is there any connection between “morality” and “religion,” or is “morality” whatever the hell Obama or the government says it is?

In my own personal case, and very definitely in the case of orthodox/genuine Christian theology, morality has EVERYTHING to do with religion.

Let me get in the face of atheists here who would interrupt me and say that they’re atheists and they’re “moral.” Bullcrap. And here’s why: if you are an atheist and a situation arises and a lie or doing something wrong would benefit you and you don’t think you would get caught, why wouldn’t you do what would benefit you? And your answer as an atheist MUST be entirely subjective and completely arbitrary. Lying, for example, is “unchristian.” But how would lying by “unatheist?” What IS “atheist morality” such that if you do X you are a bad atheist??? And of course there is nothing, because atheism and morality have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Whereas as a Christian, as a religious person, as someone who believes in God, I would tell the truth or do the moral thing in a given situation even to my own immediate harm because I BELIEVE THAT GOD REWARDS GOOD AND PUNISHES EVIL AT JUDGMENT DAY. WHICH ATHEISTS DON’T BELIEVE.

George Washington said, ““Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

So yeah, the view that morality comes from anywhere OTHER than religion is TREASON. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are traitors to America according to the father of our country and our greatest American hero.

John Adams pointed out that the Constitution was written ONLY for people who believed in God and received their morality from Him: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Samuel Adams put it this way: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”

Patrick Henry had this to say: “The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”

You need to understand that when it comes to ObamaCare, “morality” is quite simply whatever the hell Obama says it is. “Morality” is a game of “Simon Says,” and Obama has appointed himself as “Simon.”

If morality can be completely and fundamentally severed from religion, then what IS morality? It is nothing more than whatever Obama or whoever is in charge of the government says it is. And nothing more. That ought to terrify you, if you aren’t a complete moral idiot.

Here’s another question: Can the government grant Hobby Lobby a waiver when it comes to forcing them to provide the four forms of “birth control” (read “abortifacients”) given that Hobby Lobby provides coverage for the sixteen forms of birth control that DON’T actually kill fertilized eggs (babies)???

Given that Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The purpose of the LAW was to prevent any laws that substantially burdened a person’s free exercise of religion., doesn’t it seem like Obama and Democrats ought to do anything possible to prevent forcing people to perform abortions or fund abortions against their religiously-informed consciences?

Consider all the other damn waivers Obama has issued in hopes of keeping his Democrats in power in the Senate. There is clearly another way around this because Obama has found another way at least 25 times when it came to protecting his Democrats from the consequences of their evil socialist health care takeover law.

Coincidentally, Schrader filed his bill the same day Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified on Capitol Hill that, “there is no delay beyond March 31st.” Of course, that wasn’t the first, or last, time she made that claim. And, as our colleagues over at Wonkblog explain, the administration is adamant that it’s not so much an extension as an accommodation.

Heritage provides a montage of such assurances as well as some well-deserved mockery:

No, it cannot happen. It will not happen. The Obama administration absolutely, positively will NOT extend the deadline to sign up for Obamacare.

This isn’t even a laugh line anymore. It’s just an eye roller. And how silly these guys look now:

“We have no plans to extend the open enrollment period. In fact, we don’t actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014.” — Health and Human Services (HHS) official Julie Bataille, March 11

“Once that 2014 open enrollment period has been set, they are set permanently.” – HHS official Michael Hash, March 11

“March 31st is the deadline for enrollment. You’ve heard us make that clear.” – Press Secretary Jay Carney, March 21

There was no delay…until there was. The Washington Post reported last night that March 31 is not, in fact, the final word. To get more time, you tell the government that you haven’t been able to sign up yet:

Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

My favorite there is Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney, who says, “March 31st is the deadline for enrollment. You’ve heard us make that clear.”

Until he made it clear that Obama had tooted his ObamaHorn and imperiously re-issued “morality” to say that what would be wrong was now right and what is right is no longer wrong.

So it turns out the answer mimicked Obama’s campaign slogan: “Absolutely NOT” turned into “Yes, we can!”

And they could have protected Hobby Lobby from violating their consciences, too. They simply chose not to do so. Kind of like homosexuals had the right to marry whatever adult of the opposite sex who would have them and they chose not to exercise their right. Which is another way of saying that marriage between one man and one woman doesn’t violate anybody’s “rights.” It merely rightly defines what marriage IS.

So ObamaCare didn’t HAVE to substantially burden Christians who wanted to exercise their basic rights to form a corporation. Obama merely wanted to violate Christians’ rights because that’s the kind of demonic man he is.

There is no question whatsoever that Barack Obama is violating the Constitution and violating the law. He is imposing a substantial burden on religious freedom when there are very clearly ways to have avoided this fascist mess.

My point in the above is to simply demonstrate that Obama didn’t have to force Hobby Lobby to violate its conscience, either as individuals or as a corporation. There was another way, because as Obama has now proven over and over and over again, there has been another way around EVERY ASPECT of this idiotic failed law. And so there was a way around this too.

Here’s another thing: nobody knows what the Supreme Court is going to do on this one. It’s basically like, “Let’s spin the wheel of chance to find out what the Constitution means today!”

Laws no longer mean what they say in this country. Which is another way of saying they no longer mean ANYTHING.

America is no longer a nation of laws. Obama abrogates the law as he sees fit and simply issues unconstitutional waivers and unconstitutional extensions. It is a nation under a Fuehrer, rather than under God as we mouth in our Pledge of Allegiance.

And that’s important because that’s what Hitler did: he had his minions pledge allegiance directly to HIM. That’s what we all might as well be doing now, under Obama and his God damn America.

Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity of any kind whatsoever. They are falsely claiming that Hobby Lobby is somehow denying women birth control when in fact they provide SIXTEEN different forms of birth control on the health insurance that they offer. This isn’t about health care OR birth control; it is about abortion and Obama wanting to demonically force Christians to violate their faith and their conscience and fund the murder of ANOTHER 55 million innocent human beings.

What does the Bible say about abortion and where babies come from?

“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” — Psalm 139:13-16

I stand for human LIFE. Which is another way of saying that I stand AGAINST this demon-possessed president and his demon-possessed Democrat Party and their genocide that is already more than nine times as murderous as Hitler’s.

And I stand for America as “One nation under God” as opposed to “One nation WITHOUT God” as godless Democrats are now demanding.

So, again, Democrats are demon-possessed LIARS for saying this is about a corporation not being a “person” and therefore not able to have religion. Because it is a FACT that Democrats don’t want ANY PERSON to be able to practice his or her religion unless it is a “religion” of demons.

“Those employers could choose not to give health insurance and pay not that high a penalty – not that high a tax,” Sotomayor said.

Clement said Hobby Lobby would pay more than $500 million per year in penalties, but Kagan disagreed.

“No, I don’t think that that’s the same thing, Mr. Clement,” Kagan said. “There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all.

So how can this be about “health care” when these liberal judges are literally telling Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties NOT to provide health care, but to just dump their poor bastard employees into the sewer of ObamaCare???

The crazy thing is, as Christians, Hobby Lobby would ALSO have to violate their consciences to refuse to provide their employees health care.

Liberals are evil, pure and simple. This isn’t about “health care.” This is about liberals trying “to control the people.”

This is about Obama and his government having a messiah complex, pure and simple.

We’re about to lose what little is left of America. It’s all up to the throw of the dice in the Supreme Court where a bunch of unelected judges get to sit and dictate what “religion” is and what “morality” is.

So now the left and the Democrats and Obama and the mainstream media are assuring us that trampling on the First Amendment, on religious freedom, on personal conscience and on the rights of people NOT to have Antichrist governing every aspect of our increasingly miserable lives will give us a cost savings. They’re telling us that health insurance companies will save all kinds of money if Obama forces the Catholic Church to violate its theology that Catholics had held for one thousand-five hundred years and provide birth control, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization. And that they will then pass all that savings on to you.

Well, that sounds good, but it’s a lie just like pretty much every other thing that the left says.

That was the explicit condition that the Department of Health and Human Services imposed on the panel of health-care experts it commissioned to develop the “preventive services” mandate that will require virtually all health-insurance plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and contraceptives—including those that cause abortions.

The fact that HHS prohibited the panel from considering the cost effectiveness of the mandate it developed sharply contrasts with President Obama’s declaration at the White House last Friday that his administration had adopted the panel’s recommendations precisely because they will “make the overall cost of health care lower.”

One economist who served on the panel, meanwhile, suggested in a dissenting opinion that the panel’s recommendations in fact might not be cost effective and that the panel’s process for arriving at its recommendations “tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) that Obama signed in 2010 included a provision that all new health care plans would be required to cover “preventive services” without charging any fees or co-pay to the insured. The law allowed the secretary of health and human services to determine which “preventive services” would be mandated for women.

HHS commissioned and funded a committee of scientists, operating under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine (a part of the National Academies of Sciences), to recommend which “preventive services” for women should be included, cost free, in all insurance plans.

The panel—The Committee on Preventive Services for Women–had only 6 months to do its work and met only 5 times. On July 19, 2011, it issued a report with its recommendations. These included the following: “The committee recommends for consideration as a preventive service for women: the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.”

Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 1 of last year, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the panel’s contraception-sterilization recommendation as a new federal regulation—set to take effect on Aug. 1 of this year.

In its report, the committee had noted the short time in which it had to work and repeatedly reiterated HHS’s order that it could not consider cost effectiveness in determining its recommendations.

“The committee met five times within six months,” the report said.

“The cost-effectiveness of screening or services could not be a factor for the committee to consider in its analysis leading to its recommendations,” the report said.

“However, it should be noted that the committee did not have adequate time or resources to conduct its own meta-analyses or comprehensive systematic review of each preventive service,” the committee warned.

“Finally,” the committee said, “cost-effectiveness was explicitly excluded as a factor that the committee could use in developing recommendations, and so the committee process could not evaluate preventive services on that basis.”

“Furthermore,” the committee said, “for consistency in approach with the other three guidelines used by the ACA and given the time limitations for this study, the committee was restricted from considering cost-effectiveness in its process for identifying gaps in current recommendations.”

One of the 16 members of the panel—Prof. Anthony Lo Sasso an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s School of Public Health–issued a dissenting report. He criticized the panel’s process for lack a rigorous analytical method and for filtering things “through a lens of advocacy.” He also suggested there was good reason to believe the panel’s recommendations might not be cost effective.

“Readers of the Report should be clear on the facts that the recommendations were made without high quality, systematic evidence of the preventive nature of the services considered,” Lo Sasso wrote. “Put differently, evidence that use of the services in question leads to lower rates of disability or disease and increased rates of well-being is generally absent.

“The view of this dissent,” wrote Lo Sasso, “is that the committee process for evaluation of the evidence lacked transparency and was largely subject to the preferences of the committee’s composition. Troublingly, the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through the lends of advocacy. An abiding principle in the evaluation of the evidence and the recommendations put forth as a consequence should be transparency and strict objectivity, but the committee failed to demonstrate these principles in the Report.”

Lo Sasso also raised a question about the potential cost effectiveness of offering some preventive services for free because it would create a “benign moral hazard”—leading more people to utilize the free service.

“Whether coverage of preventive service leads to a reduction in healthcare expenditure depends on the fraction of enrollees using the service before the service becomes covered and the magnitude of the response among enrollees who experience the reduction in out-of-pocket price,” wrote Lo Sasso. “Knowing how elastic patient demand is to preventive services is a critical element to a coverage decision even if one already has good estimates of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This is self-evidently a useful parameter to know for any preventive service because it highlights the impact that first-dollar coverage of the service will have, perhaps in relation to other forms of outreach.”

Because the committee was not given the time to do a serious analysis of the real impact of the recommended “preventive services,” Lo Sasso recommended that Secretary Sebelius not mandate the services “until such time as the evidence can be objectively and systematically evaluated.”

Despite the fact that this scientifically panel charged with coming up with the recommended preventive services had been expressly forbidden from looking at their cost effectiveness, President Obama declared that his administration had moved forward with the recommendations precisely because of their cost effectiveness.

“As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost,” Obama said last Friday at the White House. “That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money–for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody. That’s because it’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one.

“We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control,” said Obama. “In addition to family planning, doctors often prescribe contraception as a way to reduce the risks of ovarian and other cancers, and treat a variety of different ailments. And we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services.”

So we have a tyrant who states something as a FACT that he EXPLICITLY demanded not be tested to see if it was true. Which ought to tell you that his “fact” is in fact probably false.

We have become a nation of despicable people who believe lies. That’s the bottom line. People who believe lies and reject the truth are little better than the people who tell the lies in the first place.

We’re seeing “the big lie” over and over and over again from this administration. And what is most frightening is how Obama lies “in the name of science.”

A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.

“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”

What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.

After that, Frisch argued, should come the legal assault: “We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”

Frisch went on to call for “an elaborate shareholder campaign” againstNews Corporation, the parent company of Fox News: “This can take many forms, from a front group of shareholders, to passing resolutions at shareholder meetings or massive demonstrations are [sic] shareholder meetings.”

Obama demonically pitted women against Catholics in order to win the women’s vote by sacrificing the Catholics and forcing them to pay for “services” they have found morally reprehensible for one-and-a-half millennia. That’s how he rolls.

I think back to some haunting words:

…..Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated. Tens of thousands are imprisoned. Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

America will discover one day – especially if it re-elects this despot – that they voted for a truly evil man who did nothing but hurt them while constantly promising he would heal them.

Question: What would you call a million lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

Answer: A good start.

Lawyers routinely are in the hall of shame as one of the most distrusted professionals in America.

America is still the unrivaled leader of the world … in lawsuits. We are the most litigious society on the face of the earth. And every single item you buy you pay more for because of lawsuits. Especially your healthcare, for what it’s worth.

Trial lawyers are like cockroaches, only you can (at least you can still) crush cockroaches without getting sued.

The only time trial lawyers aren’t slime is when they’re protecting you from another trial lawyer. And of course even the trial lawyer on your side ends up raping you.

Trial lawyers really hate Rick Perry. Which means he’s got to be a pretty good candidate.

Democratic Houston trial lawyer Steve Mostyn — who, along with his wife, Amber, donated nearly $9 million to Texas candidates and party committees in the 2010 cycle — said he’s in the process of forming “some federal PACs” to take on Perry. That will likely include a federal super PAC that could take in the kind of massive donations that are permitted in Texas.

Mostyn said his political spending wouldn’t just center on the trial lawyers’ agenda.

“The legal issues are important and near and dear to my heart,” Mostyn told POLITICO. “But more important is the myth that we’re doing great down here when we’re not. We’re falling behind the rest of the country, and the country is falling behind the rest of the world.”

But the “legal issues,” as Mostyn calls them, are far more than incidental to the hostile relationship between Perry and trial attorneys.

The governor has pushed through a string of tort reform laws, including a 2003 measure putting a monetary cap on non-economic damage awards. He passed another law in the most recent Texas legislative session, making it easier to dismiss some lawsuits and putting plaintiffs on the hook for legal costs in certain cases that are defeated or dismissed.

Texas used to be a land of milk and honey for trial lawyers like Mostyn. He made his considerable fortune in mold lawsuits, back when “mold was gold” (also: a giant trial lawyer scam). Mostyn’s firm also made a handsome profit, no one outside the firm knows how much due to the sheer volume of lawsuits they handled, off the last couple of hurricanes that struck Texas. Those lawsuits left the state’s windstorm insurance fund depleted and the state at risk of bankruptcy until Gov. Perry and the GOP legislature shored the fund up in the 2011 session. But the tort reform successes of 2003 and 2011 have really put trial lawyers on the back foot in Texas. Two trial lawyers have emerged as the prime sources of funding for Democrats and left wing causes in Texas: Mostyn and the late Fred Baron. Baron’s name should also sound familiar; before he died, he used a chunk of his fortune to help John Edwards cover up his love child situation. Baron’s money also funds Matt Angle’s “shadow party” that I’ve written about before. That the Baron estate and the Mostyn empire are the prime engines behind nearly all Democrat activity in the state of Texas gives the game away neatly, proving that when the Democrats talk about good government, they’re really talking about government that’s good for trial lawyers. Mostyn even employs a couple of Democrats currently serving in the legislature. Another Democrat trial lawyer likely to be involved in a war on Perry is former state Rep. Jim Dunnam. Dunnam lost in the 2010 wave to newcomer Marva Beck, so he is out of the lege at the moment, but not out of power in Democrat circles. Dunnam built his empire in part on viatical settlements, which are means by which terminally ill people cash in on their life insurance policies before they die. You can look at viaticals as a service to the terminally ill, or a predation on very vulnerable people in their hour of need, depending on your point of view.

So you’re likely to see several PACs appear out of nowhere, funding slick ads and attack web sites casting Rick Perry as a tool of rich devils, or a killer of education, or some other kind of boogeyman who kicks puppies, hates babies and just might be a shapeshifting vampire in the service of the Bilderbergers. Mostyn is very likely to be behind those ads and web sites, and his actual agenda has very little to do with the content of the attacks. He is all about restoring the old order in which trial lawyers were king.

ATLANTA (AP) – A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn’t go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics argued the law violates people’s rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a “quintessential” power.

“What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” the opinion said.

Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.

The 11th Circuit isn’t the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government’s new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.

But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ coverage.

The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson’s ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that “would imperil individual liberty, render Congress’s other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states.”

The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its “quintessential” rights when it adopted the new law.

During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.

The arguments unfolded in what’s considered one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.

Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he’s been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter’s outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.

Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami’s lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.

The Obama administration has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from 20 states opposing ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which requires almost all Americans to purchase health insurance.

According to Obama’s Justice Department, the individual mandate is constitutional because “requiring individuals to buy health insurance is an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority.” (The National Federation of Independent Businesses has more here.)

More broadly, the administration’s legal position could create a big political problem. Back on Sept. 12, 2008, Obama said:

I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

On multiple occasions Obama promised, “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

Some argue that Obama already violated that pledge when he signed the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan bill that boosted cigarette taxes. And that may, indeed, be the case.

But the individual mandate “tax” hits almost everyone and gives people no choice.

If the administration continues with its legal position, Obama is admitting he’s violated his tax pledge, giving political fodder to Republicans. But if he stops the DOJ, that weakens the case for an individual mandate, a critical part of ObamaCare.

Maintaining a campaign pledge vs. ramming through the transformation of American society? That’s a no-brainer for this president.

(AP) President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

[…]

He told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he will keep his pledge not to raise taxes on families earning up to $250,000, and that much of the final bill – hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years – can be achieved from savings within the current system. Coming up with the rest remains a key legislative obstacle.

And now there is no question that if ObamaCare ISN’T A TAX – which would make Barack Obama a documented liar when he publicly said it wasn’t – that it is a clearly unconstitutional takeover.

Either way, the man stinking up the Oval Office is the most dishonest and profoundly anti-American president in this once great nation’s entire history.

Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola – whose previous ruling that ObamaCare was inherently unconstitutional was cited and reaffirmed today – explained why ObamaCare was unconstitutional and un-American in terms such as these:

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.

Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

Americans must decide if, in the name of homeland security, they are willing to allow TSA operatives to storm public places in their communities with no warning, pat them down, and search their bags. And they better decide quickly.

Bus travelers were shocked when jackbooted TSA officers in black SWAT-style uniforms descended unannounced upon the Tampa Greyhound bus station in April with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and federal bureaucrats in tow.

A news report by ABC Action News in Tampa showed passengers being given the signature pat downs Americans are used to watching the Transportation Security Administration screeners perform at our airports. Canine teams sniffed their bags and the buses they rode. Immigration officials hunted for large sums of cash as part of an anti-smuggling initiative.

The TSA clearly intends for these out-of-nowhere swarms by its officers at community transit centers, bus stops and public events to become a routine and accepted part of American life.

The TSA has conducted 8,000 of these security sweeps across the country in the past year alone, TSA chief John Pistole told a Senate committee June 14. They are part of its VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) program, which targets public transit related places.

All of which is enough to make you wonder if we are watching the formation of the “civilian national security force” President Obama called for on the campaign trail “that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded” as the military.

The VIPR swarm on Wednesday, the TSA’s largest so far, was such a shocking display of the agency’s power that it set the blogosphere abuzz.

In a massive flex of muscle most people didn’t know the TSA had, the agency led dozens of federal and state law enforcement agencies in a VIPR exercise that covered three states and 5,000 square miles. According to the Marietta Times, the sweep used reconnaissance aircraft and “multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams.”

When did the TSA get this powerful? Last year, Pistole told USA Today he wanted to “take the TSA to the next level,” building it into a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.”

What few people realize is how far Pistole has already come in his quest. This is apparently what that next level looks like. More than 300 law enforcement and military personnel swept through a 100-mile stretch of the Ohio Valley alone, examining the area’s industrial infrastructure, the Charleston Gazette reported.

Federal air marshals, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the FBI, the Office of Homeland Security and two dozen other federal, state and local agencies teamed up to scour the state’s roads, bridges, water supply and transit centers under the TSA’s leadership.

What is remarkable about these security swarms is that they don’t just involve federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The TSA brings in squads of bureaucrats from state and federal agencies as well, everything from transportation departments to departments of natural resources.

The TSA had received no specific threats about the Tampa bus station before the April sweep, reporters were told.

They were there “to sort of invent the wheel in advance in case we have to if there ever is specific intelligence requiring us to be here,” said Gary Milano with the Department of Homeland Security in an ABC News Action television report. “This way us and our partners are ready to move in at a moment’s notice.”

Federal immigration officials from Customs and Border Patrol swept the station with the TSA, looking for “immigration violations, threats to national security” and “bulk cash smuggling.” (How the bulk cash smuggling investigation related to national security was never explained.)

“We’ll be back,” Milano told reporters. “We won’t say when we’ll be back. This way the bad guys are on notice we’ll be back.”

The TSA gave the same vague answers when asked about the three-state sweep this week. That sweep wasn’t in response to any specific security threat, either.

The purpose was to “have a visible presence and let people know we’re out here,” Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West Virginia told the Gazette. “It can be a deterrent.”

It might be — if Americans are willing to live this way.

Tara Servatius is a radio talk show host. Follow her @TaraServatius and on Facebook.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded [on December 20, 2007].

– prior to ripping up the Constitution and then urinating on it to get America into Libya and Yemen.

Liberals are hypocrites. Hypocrisy is the liberals’ quintessential essence. If you took the hypocrisy out of the liberal, you could not have liberalism. You certainly couldn’t have Nancy Pelosi. Oh, or John Kerry. Or Charlie Rangel. Or Al Gore. Or Barack Obama. Or Joe Biden. Or Bill and Hillary Clinton. Notice how these are pretty much all their top-level people; the rank-and-file march in goose-step behind them. Democrats are the kind of people who demonize Republicans left and right for taking actions that are necessary in the face of direct threats. And then they do far worse than the Republicans EVER did, and “It’s not fascism when WE do it.”

Where are all the liberals demanding Obama be impeached for all his wars? Where are all the liberals demanding Obama be impeached for all of his secrecy and his lies? It was all over the place (and all over the front pages of the mainstream media) throughout the years of Bush derangement syndrome. Remember how they were out in force every single day in front of the televesion cameras? Where are all the Cindy Sheehands and the Code Pinks and the coverage of them NOW???

Try to sort through the Democrats’ basic premise: the party that is trying to grow the size of goverment more and more and put government in charge of more and more of our lives ISN’T fascist; while the party that is trying to reduce the size and scope and power of government ARE the fascists.

As NewsBusters previously noted, there were 204 ObamaCare waivers issued in April, and almost 20 percent of them went to establishments in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) San Francisco district.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

Boyle noted a number of the establishments getting these waivers are very high-priced eateries in Pelosi’s district, many of which as a Bay Area resident I can attest to being some of the finest in the nation.

[O]ne might think that a restaurant that charges $59 for a porterhouse steak as Boboquivari’s does could afford to fit its health care plan to Pelosi’s own specifications. The same goes for Café Mason, with its $60 entrees, and Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine calls “the best day spa in San Francisco.” If these kinds of high-tone joints can’t afford ObamaCare, then how can anyone else?

The odds of one Representative getting 20% of a batch of waivers from the Obama administration as a coincidence seems rather high. Once again, we have to wonder exactly how waiver applications are judged and approved. With its high percentage of unions and party leader constituents, this is looking more and more like a mechanism for political payoffs.

Indeed.

Just think if current Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) had procured these waivers for his district in Ohio. Can you imagine the media uproar?

Let’s see whether Pelosi’s shenanigans get much attention from her sycophants in the press.

In what is fast becoming a weekly event, the Obama administration granted 200 more companies aivers from the Democrats’ sweeping health care law in the Friday night news dump. That brings the number of companies receiving waivers to 1,372. (You can get a full list of the companies exempted here.)

Not surprisingly, it helps to be a Democratic ally when seeking a waiver. The Republican Policy Committee reports that over half of the workers that have been exempted so far belong to unions:

The plans newly approved for waivers cover more than 160,000 people, bringing to nearly 3.1 million the number of individuals in plans exempted from the health law’s requirements. Of the participants receiving waivers, more than half – over 1.55 million – are in union plans, raising questions of why such a disproportionate share of union members are receiving waivers from the law’s requirements. The percentage of participants receiving waivers that come from unions also continues to rise – the number was 48% in April, and 45% in March.

Unions already received a generous concession in the health care bill. Their generous “cadilac” insurance plans were exempted from being taxed until 2018, adding about $120 billion to the bill’s cost over ten years. For more on how the administration has helped unions, see my story in THE WEEKLY STANDARD from a few weeks ago.

The total fiasco fondly known as “ObamaCare” is going to be a total disaster for America. And even the liberals who actually have to make payrolls understand that.

Every Democrat who even APPLIES for a waiver ought to go to prison. You voted for this load of sh*t, dammit YOU EAT IT.

Instead, Obama is very clearly granting waivers from his vile healthcare destroying law to his political supporters, such that the people who voted for Obama’s socialist takeover of America will be exempted from it, while those who decried it are going to get stuck with it.

It’s kind of like socialists who vote themselves other people’s money; only now they’re also voting for other people’s death panels, too.

White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare “right-wing social engineering,” injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party’s efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate.

In the same interview Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama’s health law.

The former House speaker’s decision to stick with his previous support for an individual mandate comes days after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended the health revamp he championed as governor, which includes a mandate.

The moves suggest the Republican primary contest, which will include both men, could feature a robust debate on health care, with GOP candidates challenging the Democratic law while defending their own variations.

Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution. “Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs,” he said.

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are on the same side of Romney-care, are they?

WASHINGTON — More than half of primary care practices in Massachusetts are not accepting new patients, and wait times for many new patients continue to lengthen five years after the state passed its landmark healthcare reform law, according to a survey sponsored by the state medical society.

[…]

Fewer than half of family physicians (47%) are accepting new patients, the survey found. When the Massachusetts Medical Society first began collecting data on access to family physicians in 2007, 70% were accepting new patients.

You like that trend? Just let it continue. Because the number of physicians accepting new patients is going to go down, down, down as long as we’re playing the game of socialist medicine.

We also find that Massachusetts health care recipients are facing increasingly long waiting times to see a doctor as a result of the increasingly few doctors who are willing to accept patients under these awful socialized medicine regulations. Which in turn forces up the cost of health care, as more and more patients go to expensive emergency room care.

Remember how ObamaCare was sold under the fictitious guise that it would cut cost by eleminating the emergency room visits? That was a load of methane.

Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.

Newt Gingrich has bided his time because of his shameful personal past. But now that he finally gets back into political life, we quickly find that the man has not changed from the days when he abandoned his wife in a cancer ward because he found somebody prettier. Now he’s abandoning conservatives figuring we’ll have to vote for him in a general election against Obama while he courts the so-called “moderates.”

There are two ways a Republican can run for president: by standing up for conservative values, or by abandoning them to appeal to “moderates.” Which is to say that one can run as a Republican on Republican values, or one can run as a Republican-In-Name-Only and try to get votes by abandoning those principles. Ronald Reagan did the former; John McCain and now Newt Gingrich are doing the latter.

Calling the Republican Congress “right wing” and complicating the ability for Republicans to run on Republican principles disqualifies Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee for president. Believe me, Obama knows how to run against a RINO; don’t forget he got elected running against a career RINO.

There are a handful of politicians who truly stand for principles. Newt Gingrich just proved he isn’t one of them.

Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, has been working alongside the wife of former President Bill Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, on a number of issues, and even appeared with her at a press conference on Wednesday to promote – of all things – health care legislation.

But more puzzling than that, Gingrich has been talking up Clinton’s presidential prospects in 2008, to the chagrin of conservative loyalists who once regarded him as an iconic figure. Last month, he even suggested she might capture the presidency, saying “any Republican who thinks she’s going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons.”

What gives? For Clinton, standing side-by-side with her husband’s onetime nemesis gives her the chance to burnish her credentials among the moderates she has been courting during her time in the Senate.

But in recent comments, she portrayed the rapprochement as one born of shared policy interests, not calculated politics.

“I know it’s a bit of an odd-fellow, or odd-woman, mix,” she said. “But the speaker and I have been talking about health care and national security now for several years, and I find that he and I have a lot in common in the way we see the problem.”

For his part, Gingrich, who helped lead the impeachment fight against the former president, called the senator “very practical” and “very smart and very hard-working,” adding, “I have been very struck working with her.”

Don’t let that closing door to your political career hit you on the way out, Newt.

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation …”

– hasn’t seemed to work out very well in the real world. I mean who talks like that but a fascist demagogue promising a false Utopia, anyway? Not that most liberals have any clue whatsoever about the real world, mind you.

The evidence is crystal clear that Obama is a fascist and a demagogue. But the mainstream media is every bit as unlikely to tell the truth about Obama as Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda was likely to tell the truth about their Fuhrer.

The New York Times once said – as part of the irrational fascistic hype surrounding Obama – that:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

Did Obama ever once come close to actually fulfilling that “core presidential promise”???

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package

When [Republican Rep. Eric] Cantor tried to justify his own position, Obama responded: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

Were those really the words that would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years”??? In taking that stand, was there actually any chance whatsoever that Obama would “end the partisan and ideological wars”??? Is anyone frankly so morally and intellectually stupid to see these tactics as they way to “build a new governing majority”???

And of course, shortly after the American people rejected Obama in the largest shallacking in modern American history and voted against the Democrat Party in droves, Nancy Pelosi began to further degenerate into fascism (where elections shouldn’t matter unless the fascists win them), saying: “elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do.”

As I said, Obama is a fascist bully and a cynical demagogue. And yet the mainstream media has the unmitigated chutzpah to continue to insanely depict this cynical, lying, hypocrite demagogue as an inspirational figure.

The American people and the mushroom have something in common: both are kept in the dark and fed manure.

So you can understand why the American people – for all the information available to them – are so terribly ignorant about just what the hell is going on in our political system.

But as misinformed and lied-to as Americans are when it comes to the sea of lies they are presented with as “news,” they are still aware that fewer of them have jobs, fewer of them have homes, their food cost more, their fuel cost more and that the quality of their lives are rapidly slipping away under the policies of a failed president and his failed party.

America’s Best DaysThose Confident That America’s Best Days Lie Ahead Down to 31%
Monday, April 25, 2011

Voter confidence that the nation’s best days are still to come has fallen to its lowest level ever.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that just 31% believe America’s best days are in the future. That’s down three points from last month and is the lowest result found in polling since late 2006.

Fifty-three percent (53%) believe America’s best days are in the past, also the highest measurement in over four years. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Separate polling finds that only 22% of Likely Voters believe the United States is now heading in the right direction. That ties the lowest level found during Barack Obama’s presidency.

While majorities of Republicans (68%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (52%) believe America’s best days are in the past, a plurality of Democrats (45%) thinks its best days still lie ahead.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of white voters believe America’s best days have come and gone, but the same number of black voters (58%) feel the opposite is true.

[…]

And of course, it is true: America’s days truly ARE behind us as long as Barack Hussein Obama and as long as Democrats are able to continue to lead. Either Democrats will go down, or America will go down.

But, liberals say, it was BUSH who made the economy fail. Two things: 1) how many years should that line of garbage continue to succeed? And 2) it was never true to begin with (also see here).

Do you know that Democrats had total control of both the House and the Senate from 2006 until 2010???

George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to warn Congress that unless we got control of the out-of-control Democrat-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the out-of-control housing and housing mortgage market that it was poisoning with piles of bad debt, our economy would go under. The problem had festered because Bush had reappointed the first black Fannie Mae CEO because of political correctness. Franklin Raines was a failure and a corrupt fraud who disguised massive debt. Further, fearing the same political correctness, Republicans had allowed themselves to be repeatedly stymied in their attempts to reform the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie and Freddie as Democrats screamd “racism.” John McCain was if anything even more clear in 2006 when there was still time to fix the developing crisis. McCain wrote (in 2006):

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

McCain asked, “Who would actually pay this massive debt for these incredibly risky liberal policies if Fannie or Freddie could not?’ And we now have the answer to that question, don’t we???

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid.”

John McCain correctly predicted a disaster. Barney Frank was still spouting outrageous lies just one month before the bottom fell out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then caused the bottom to fall out of the entire economy. Republicans were right and Democrats were disasterously wrong. And the American people responded by electing Democrats and purging Republicans. Because we were lied to, and because we have become a bad people who believe lies.

Democrats blocked every single move by both the Republicans and by George Bush. They actually threatened filibusters to prevent Bush from fixing the broken system that failed and it was DEMOCRATS who took our economy down the drain.

BEIJING: The Chinese economy will surpass that of the US by 2016, the International Monetary Fund ( IMF )) has predicted.According to the IMF’s forecast, based on “purchasing power parities”, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) will rise from $11.2 trillion in 2011 to $19 trillion in 2016, while the American economy will increase from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion.

China’s share of the global economy will ascend from 14 percent to 18 percent, while the US’ share will descend to 17.7 percent, China Daily reported.

The Economist had predicted in December 2010 that China would overtake the US in terms of nominal GDP in 2019.

At the same time all of the other growing disasters is taking place, we have a crisis in the price of oil. And Obama has done nothing but exacerbate that crisis with energy policies that are even more destructive than Jimmy Carter’s.

Do you feel your nation growing smaller and smaller and weaker and weaker? That is the hope and change you voted for.

In the time that Obama has been president, we’ve gone from predicting China would overtake us by 2030, to 2019, to just five years away. And mark my words, it will be moved up yet again, before they overtake Obama’s ignorant stupidity even faster than that.

Under Obama, and due to his immoral and criminally reckless policies, we are spending like fools and at the same time insanely inflating our money supply (under the euphamism of “qantitative easing” or QE2. And here are the results:

The U.S. dollar’s downward slide is accelerating as low interest rates, inflation concerns and the massive federal budget deficit undermine the currency.

With no relief in sight for the dollar on any of those fronts, the downward pressure on the dollar is widely expected to continue.
The dollar fell nearly 1% against a broad basket of currencies this week, following a drop of similar size last week. The ICE U.S. Dollar Index closed at its lowest level since August 2008, before the financial crisis intensified.

“The dollar just hasn’t had anything positive going for it,” said Alessio de Longis, who oversees the Oppenheimer Currency Opportunities Fund.

The United States of America is dangerously close to complete collapse. One wrong move, one piece of bad news, just one thing, could send us into a collapse that will be impossible to stop.

And we are either being led by a total fool, or even worse, we are being led by a man who is actively plotting to collapse America to impose a radical leftwing ideology, and who doesn’t care one iota more about the American people than Adolf Hitler cared about the German people.

I’m sure you have probably picked up on my angry tone. I am angry; I’m beyond angry. Why? Because I see the beast foretold by the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation coming. I see the collapse coming, and the Antichrist riding in on his white horse to save the day. And I see that the same liberals, the same progressives, the same Democrats who caused this collapse will be the ones to welcome this coming world dictator. And it will be these same Democrats who call for the American people to take his mark on their hands or on their foreheads so that they can join the rest of the world and buy and sell.

That about covers everything Obama’s trying to do. Let’s ruin America with one ruinous policy after another. And the fact that everything he’s doing has already been tried before and completely failed before shouldn’t have anything to do with anything.